The Unabomber’s Manifesto
INTRODUCTION
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a
disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the lifeexpectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they
have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued
development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly
subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage
on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption
and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical
suffering even in "advanced" countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break
down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of
physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a
long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of
permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms
to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be
inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so
as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very
painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the
results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best
break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.
This revolution may or may not make use of violence: it may be
sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few
decades. We can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very
general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system
should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that
form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object
will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and
technological basis of the present society.
THE POWER PROCESS
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for
something that we will call the "power process." This is closely
related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not
quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three
most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal.
(Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and
needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth
element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for
everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs
42-44).
34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything
he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will
develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of
fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized.
Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that
leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of
fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power.
But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert
themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even
though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One
must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.
SURROGATE ACTIVITIES
38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized.
For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent
hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he
became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves
to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for
themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same
energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have
put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the
Roman Empire had their literary pretentions; many European
aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy
in hunting, though they certainly didn't need the meat; other
aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of
wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this
initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually
enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen
people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint
effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be
served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above
that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then
their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true
when decisions are made on a collective bases if the group making
the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is
insignificant [5]
41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less
satisfying than the pursuit of real goals ( that is, goals that people
would want to attain even if their need for the power process were
already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or
most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are
never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly
strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one
problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner
drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who
pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment
from these activities than they do from the "mundane" business of
satisfying their biological needs, but that it is because in our society
the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to
triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their
biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of
an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great
deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities. have a great
deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.
44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal,
making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal-that selfesteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one
does not have adequate opportunity to go throughout the power
process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the
way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low
self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt,
frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism,
abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]
AUTONOMY
42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary
for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree
of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be
undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own
SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in
modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We
aren't the first to mention that the world today seems to be going
crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is
good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress
and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than
modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in
primitive societies. Abuse of women and common among the
Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some
of the American Indian tribes. But is does appear that GENERALLY
SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the
preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples
than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern
society to the fact that that society requires people to live under
conditions radically different from those under which the human race
evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of
behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier
conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we
consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power
process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which
modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before
dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social
problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial
society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from
nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the break-down of
natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the
village or the tribe.
51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the
breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale
social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also
promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt
individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from
their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO
weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function
efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to
the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because
if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were
stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue
their own advantage at the expense of the system.
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense
(largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th
century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he
created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on
a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through
his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a
couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and
autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer
participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of
a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the
creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it
satisfied the pioneer's need for the power process.
DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN
SOCIETY
59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that
can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but
only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately
satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is
the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more
drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger,
eventually defeatism, depression, etc.
60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be
pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to
consist increasingly of artificially created drives.
61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into
group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort.
But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to
everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical
needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about
whether the effort needed to hold a job is "minimal"; but usually, in
lower- to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that
of obedience. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and
do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do
you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly
any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not
well served.)
63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2,
hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and
marketing techniques have been developed that make many people
feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even
dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy
these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. Modern man must
satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the
artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry
[11], and through surrogate activities.
65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money,
climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in
some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue their
goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else's
employee as, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their
days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it.
66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR
them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And
what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels
laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the
system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with
the rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts
must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.
67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a
deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in pursuit of
goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall
into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter
how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for
security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we
have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even
know the people who make them. ("We live in a world in which
relatively few people - maybe 500 or 1,000 - make the important
decisions" - Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by
Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend
on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly
maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or
how much pollution into our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our
doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions
made by government economists or corporation executives; and so
forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves
against these threats to more [than] a very limited extent. The
individual's search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to
a sense of powerlessness.
69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the
things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the
risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one's
fault, unless is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But
threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are
not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons
whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence.
Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.
84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power
process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs
38-40, a surrogate activity that is directed toward an artificial goal
that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he
gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal
itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous
muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series
of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves
with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp collecting. Some people
are more "other-directed" than others, and therefore will more readily
attack importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people
around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is
important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially
trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane
scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never
see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are,
and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy
their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point
out that in many cases a person's way of earning a living is also a
surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the
motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for
some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes
them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than
is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this
extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together
with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most
potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting
of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom
(see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and
engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is
so important that is deserves a separate discussion, which we shall
give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).
88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better.
Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the
human race - most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for
example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous
possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about
their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution.
Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious
emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this
involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why
didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If
he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the Hbomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much
open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit
humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating
waste and risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the
question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power
arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal
fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical
use.
92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real
welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to
the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government
officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for
research.
THE NATURE OF FREEDOM
93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot
be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively
narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But because "freedom" is a
word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear
what kind of freedom we are concerned with.
94. By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go through the power
process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities,
and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone,
especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in
control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group)
of the life-and-death issues of one's existence; food, clothing, shelter
and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's
environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control
other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own
life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large
organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,
tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is
important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see
paragraph 72).
96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of
freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it
is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power
and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly
exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of
very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media
are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated
into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something
printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but
what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material
put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make
an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible
for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If
we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present
writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted.
If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not
have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the
entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if
these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would
soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded
by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to
get our message before the public with some chance of making a
lasting impression, we've had to kill people.
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
IS
UNAVOIDABLE
IN
114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped
down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on
the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot
influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of
arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any
technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate
human behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to
do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown
into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules.
To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level
bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of
unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats
exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our
freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the
regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the
functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense
of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be,
however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced
by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system
requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental
health" programs, etc.)
115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are
increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For
example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to
excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to
spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A
normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the
real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are
trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses.
Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in
active outdoor pursuits -- just the sort of things that boys like. But in
our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects,
which most do grudgingly.
117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate
MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to
any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into
small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the
cooperation of very large numbers of people. When a decision
affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals
has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the
decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made
by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical
specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number
of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to
be significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence
measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no
conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced
society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda
to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them,
but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making
people feel better, it would be demeaning.
119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs.
Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs
of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social
ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the
fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but
by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many
human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent
that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the
system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For
example, the system provides people with food because the system
couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's
psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so,
because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or
rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must
exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs
of the system.
THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE
SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS
127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom
often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very
seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A
walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace
without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of
technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced
they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away
from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't
want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could
travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of
motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict
greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became
numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a
car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where
one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow
of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various
obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration,
insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on
purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer
optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the
arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority
of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of
employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that
they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else
they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less
control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the
walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually
has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve
auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and
unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we
have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new
item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can
accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN
optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a
way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually
narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance
CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity,
indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications . . . how could
one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the
innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It
would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone,
for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet
as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances
taken together have created world in which the average man's fate is
no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and
friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote,
anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual
has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the
future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist
the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary
disease It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a
large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the
human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of
chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force
is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress
marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a
technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become
dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced
innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a
new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole
becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system
today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system
can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization.
Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of
the overthrow of the whole technological system.
133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or
ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology.
History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all
change or break down eventually. But technological advances are
permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for
example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements
that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human
beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways as to threaten
freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting.
Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably
sooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then genetic
engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this
invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological
civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent
through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently
happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed
that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the
worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political
wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
STRATEGY
183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have
a positive ideals well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as
well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is
Nature. That is , WILD nature; those aspects of the functioning of the
Earth and its living things that are independent of human
management and free of human interference and control. And with
wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those
aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject
to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free
will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
Note: The full text can be found online at
http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una (or via a Google search)